REPOR T FROM THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CRIME PRE VENTION for taking the initiative to ease any restrictions imposed. Another obstacle is that employees within the Prison and Probation Service perceive prosecutors as too passive in reviewing the need for restrictions. In the opinion of the National Council for Crime Prevention, a lack of staff means that work with isolation-breaking measures competes with other tasks of a more “indispensable” nature, such as transporting inmates to trial. This lack of staff also means that some remand prisons have more limited visiting hours, as well as limited times when the inmates can make phone calls, compared with other remand prisons. Furthermore, language barriers make breaking isolation more difficult. Finally, it is not uncommon for inmates to refuse isolation-breaking measures. According to the National Council for Crime Prevention, this often happens when an inmate is asked whether or not he or she wants to sit together with another inmate. 6.2 The National Council for Crime Prevention’s proposed measures In its proposed measures, the National Council for Crime Prevention supports the proposals offered in the Remand Prison and Restriction Government Inquiry report. This support includes proposals such as placing a limit on how long a remand period can last. However, the National Council for Crime Prevention notes that, since so few individuals are held on remand for more than six months, the proposed deadlines would probably only shorten the time spent on remand for a very limited proportion of individuals in remand prison. In the report, the National Council for Crime Prevention submits a proposal which entails specific prosecutor chambers being tasked with increasing the proportion of inmates at risk of collusion being allowed to associate with other 6 inmates (from today’s almost 0 per cent to, for example, 50 per cent). In the opinion of the National Council for Crime Prevention, this would To a larger extent mean that prosecutors would, to a greater extent than today, prosecutors should place restrictions on visits and allow association telephone calls, but from day amongst inmates one allow, for example, a greater held on remand ability to associate with other inmates. This should then be followed up and evaluated in terms of effects on investigative work and the processing of cases. The National Council for Crime Prevention also supports the Remand Prison and Restriction Government Inquiry’s proposal that children held on remand should have a statutory right to at least four hours of association with others every day, and that adults should have the right to at least two hours per day. It is preferable, in the National Council for Crime Prevention’s opinion, that individuals held with restrictions are able to associate with other inmates held with restrictions as opposed to co-sitting. Such “restriction association” means that inmates with restrictions can associate with one another. Work in this direction has already begun at the Prison and Probation Service, however, in the opinion of the National Council for Crime Prevention, it needs to be further developed and followed up. Finally, the National Council for Crime Prevention states that many of the shortcomings in the remand prison environment identified in the survey affect all inmates – regardless of restrictions. This applies not least to the appropriateness of premises and staff resources. The National Council for Crime Prevention supports the Remand Prison and Restriction Government Inquiry’s pro- – 35 –